Where and when did the trouble start ? .

With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .

'a stitch in time saves nine'

Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
ignored the warning signs .

On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
wrote:
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>
> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> ignored the warning signs .

People always ignore the warning signs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws

On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
> wrote:
>
> > Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> > With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
> > stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>
> > 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> > Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> > how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> > ignored the warning signs .
>
> People always ignore the warning signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws

Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome

Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php


TUE 03 JAN 1989 - The Times
Agents optimistic about house prices
A leading national firm of estate agents believes a collapse in the
property market in 1989 is highly unlikely. Strutt and Parker has
completed a review of 1988 trends, dominated by panic buying in the
summer, then a London-led slowdown in the last q...

WED 08 FEB 1989 - The Times
House prices 'set to fall everywhere'
House prices will fall by between 10 and 20 per cent over the next two
years, and the housing market may remain weak for some time after
that, according to two bank reports out today.

SUN 15 OCT 1989 - The Sunday Times
House buyers to be scarce until prices reach bottom
'OF COURSE the price is coming down," snapped the estate agent trying
to sell a basement flat off Kensington High Street in London. "The
owners are desperate to sell."

FRI 04 MAY 1990 - The Times
The end of house price inflation [if only]
HOUSE price inflation has finally ended nationally, nearly two years
after the market peaked, with the latest figures from the Halifax
Building Society yesterday showing that the annual rate at the end of
April was minus 0.2 per cent.

THU 05 DEC 1991 - The Times
Market weak
House prices fell by almost 1 per cent last month, confirming that the
market remains "very weak", the Halifax Building Society said
yesterday, publishing its latest figures. For the year ending in
November prices declined by 2.4 per cent

WED 04 NOV 1992 - The Times
House prices drop 4% in two months
HOUSE prices fell by 2.7 per cent last month, according to the
Nationwide building society. Since the end of August they have dropped
more than 4 per cent, figures show.

Sir Krustov wrote:
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .

About 2003 IMHO.
I remember it because up until then, nobody would even give me a bank 
account let alone a loan - that's how it had been for me since the 
middle 1980's. By 2005 I had a credit card and a £7k loan.

> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
> 
> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
> 
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
> ignored the warning signs .

Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend 
to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to 
people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:17:26 +0100, Sir Krustov wrote:
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .

ans: america, a few years ago

> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .

yes - inasmuch as the effect on the UK could've been much smaller

> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
> ignored the warning signs .

More likely greed on the part of the shareholders. Most of the "banks"
that got into trouble used to be building societies and turned into
banks when their owners (i.e. the people who had savings in them)
realised they could make a few £hundred in windfall shares. Once the
socs. had shareholders they had to make greater returns to keep the
share price up - hence the move into risky investments.
The one b/s that resisted the move was Nationwide.

On 30 Sep, 13:30, pete  wrote:
<snip>
> The one b/s that resisted the move was Nationwide.

One? There are other building societies that are still mutual,
Britannia and Skipton being two.

"Sir Krustov"  wrote in message
news:MPG.234c1b128dce13b998ba45@news.newsreader.com...
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .

Yes. Just remove confidence, greed and fear from the human psyche
and organise a socialist revolution.


Next question ?


Who'll win X-Factor ?


Hmmm, dunno.

Sir Krustov  wrote:
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
> ignored the warning signs .

"Other peoples money"

It's quite amusing watching the extreme right republicans having to back up
their "free market" rants by actually voting against their own presidents
proposals.  I guess that not one in a hundred of them have an economics
degree or any experience of the "free market" they are so in love with.

-- 
2001 Census: 1 in 7 people in the UK is a declared atheist.

Maria  wrote:
> Sir Krustov wrote:
>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
> 
> About 2003 IMHO.
> I remember it because up until then, nobody would even give me a bank 
> account let alone a loan - that's how it had been for me since the 
> middle 1980's. By 2005 I had a credit card and a £7k loan.
> 
>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
>> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>> 
>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>> 
>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
>> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
>> ignored the warning signs .
> 
> Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend 
> to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to 
> people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.
> 

I keep getting flashbacks to movies about the 1980s, such as "Other Peoples
Money" and "Wall Street".  Not seen them on TV recently.

-- 
People who need govenment to enforce their religion must not have much
faith in the power of its message.

pete  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:17:26 +0100, Sir Krustov wrote:
>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
> 
> ans: america, a few years ago
> 
>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
>> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
> 
> yes - inasmuch as the effect on the UK could've been much smaller
> 
>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>
>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
>> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
>> ignored the warning signs .
> 
> More likely greed on the part of the shareholders. Most of the "banks"
> that got into trouble used to be building societies and turned into
> banks when their owners (i.e. the people who had savings in them)
> realised they could make a few £hundred in windfall shares. Once the
> socs. had shareholders they had to make greater returns to keep the
> share price up - hence the move into risky investments.
> The one b/s that resisted the move was Nationwide. 

Yep, I've had to vote against demutualisation three or four times in the
past 10 years.  Each time I voted against money in the pocket today rather
than security in the future.  I win :-)

IIRC, building soc rules limit the risks they are allowed to take in the
money markets.  It was this restriction that was lost when a building soc
became a bank.

-- 
2001 Census: 1 in 7 people in the UK is a declared atheist.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:17:26 +0100, Sir Krustov wrote:

> Where and when did the trouble start ? .

In 1997 when Gordon Brown decided to strip the Bank of England of it's 
supervising of banks powers, and give them to a toothless, lazy, blind, 
can't organise a piss-up in brewery regulator called the FSA.

The same kind of fuck-up that continues today with the idiotic merger of 
HM Customs and the taxman. Oh, Gordon Brown thought that one out as well.

Whatever Gordon touches he fucks-up.

On 30 Sep, 16:04, Ar  wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:17:26 +0100, Sir Krustov wrote:
> > Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> In 1997 when Gordon Brown decided to strip the Bank of England of it's
> supervising of banks powers, and give them to a toothless, lazy, blind,
> can't organise a piss-up in brewery regulator called the FSA.
>
> The same kind of fuck-up that continues today with the idiotic merger of
> HM Customs and the taxman. Oh, Gordon Brown thought that one out as well.
>
> Whatever Gordon touches he fucks-up.

Brown was more than happy to see the city taking risks whilst the tax
revenues were coming in.

Plus his economist hero is Greenspan towards whom many in the US are
currently pointing the finger of blame for his endless flow of cheap
credit as in the UK.

Brown even removed house prices from the inflation calculation the BoE
uses to set interest rates.

"Maria"  wrote in message
news:LLKdnQEUAZSGhn_VRVnyuAA@bt.com...
> > Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> > how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> > ignored the warning signs .
>
> Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend
> to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to
> people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.

And don't forget the clever bit. Secure the loans on vastly overvalued houses,
because everyone knows property is a sure fire rock solid investment, and so get
the ratings agencies to give the mortgage backed debts AAA ratings.

--
Andy

Andy Pandy <spam8times@wonderful.spam.invalid> wrote:
> 
> "Maria"  wrote in message
> news:LLKdnQEUAZSGhn_VRVnyuAA@bt.com...
>> > Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
>> > how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
>> > ignored the warning signs .
>>
>> Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend
>> to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to
>> people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.
> 
> And don't forget the clever bit. Secure the loans on vastly overvalued houses,
> because everyone knows property is a sure fire rock solid investment, and so get
> the ratings agencies to give the mortgage backed debts AAA ratings.

So, the really interesting question is, who shouted "The emperor was naked"?
And why did they shout it in public?

-- 
As an atheist I don't accept the god theory.

"Nomen Publicus"  wrote in message
news:ba8ar5-cu9.ln1@buffy.sighup.org.uk...
> >> > Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> >> > how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> >> > ignored the warning signs .
> >>
> >> Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend
> >> to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to
> >> people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.
> >
> > And don't forget the clever bit. Secure the loans on vastly overvalued
houses,
> > because everyone knows property is a sure fire rock solid investment, and so
get
> > the ratings agencies to give the mortgage backed debts AAA ratings.
>
> So, the really interesting question is, who shouted "The emperor was naked"?
> And why did they shout it in public?

Many people have been shouting it for ages. But only recently did people start
listening.

--
Andy

"pete"  wrote in message
news:slrnge472g.lk8.no-one@corv.local...
> More likely greed on the part of the shareholders. Most of the "banks"
> that got into trouble used to be building societies and turned into
> banks when their owners (i.e. the people who had savings in them)
> realised they could make a few £hundred in windfall shares. Once the
> socs. had shareholders they had to make greater returns to keep the
> share price up - hence the move into risky investments.
> The one b/s that resisted the move was Nationwide.

Yeah but remember what the dodgy investments at the root cause of the current
problems are.  Loans secured against overvalued houses.  And UK houses are
probably more overvalued than US houses.

Now, what is the building societies main line of business....

--
Andy

"Sir Krustov"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.234c1b128dce13b998ba45@news.newsreader.com...
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>
> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> ignored the warning signs .

They persued a high risk high reward strategy and didnt realise (or care) 
about their exposure. A painful lesson.

Gaz

Ed wrote:
> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>>
>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>>
>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>
>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
>>> they ignored the warning signs .
>>
>> People always ignore the warning
>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
>
> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
>
> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
>
> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
>
>

House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late 
eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now, 
it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.

For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by 
65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.

Gaz

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:27:28 +0100, Maria wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

>Sir Krustov wrote:
>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
>About 2003 IMHO.
>I remember it because up until then, nobody would even give me a bank 
>account let alone a loan - that's how it had been for me since the 
>middle 1980's. By 2005 I had a credit card and a £7k loan.
>
>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
>> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>> 
>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>> 
>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
>> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
>> ignored the warning signs .
>
>Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend 
>to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to 
>people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.


But with interest rates so low and inflation being at the same value,
the actual value of repayments meant that effectively interest rates
were very small or zero.

Couple an interest rate of 3% with an inflation rate of 2%. If you buy
now with the GBP100 in the bank, you will forego the GBP 3 (ignoring
tax) that you will earn in interest.

If you buy later, goods costing GBP 100 now will be GBP 102 in a year.
The interest of GBP 3 means that you have gained GBP 1 in a year.

Buy now pay later, means that you get the GBP100 item now, pay GBP103
with interest over the year for an item that will cost GBP102. You've
now lost GBP 1 over the year but had use of the item.
 
Borrowing is not evil in itself. Not repaying is the evil. Borrowing
for intangibles such as holidays or for past consumed services or
goods that depreciate immediately like cars is reckless. This is the
toxic debt that is the cause of the panic.

Someone somewhere is bound to be chuckling and wishing they could
copyright these terms. Credit crunch and toxic debt.

Back to basics is what is required. Lend to those that can afford to
repay (in effect those that don't really need it in the first place)
or lend against assets with known agreed worth.

The downside in this panic is that it might now cause a shift in
behaviour so that too many will switch to become savers and not
spenders. If people are not spending, commercial enterprises are then
at risk. If commercial enterprises do not have a continuous inflow of
customers (regardless of how they pay) they can only survive as long
as their own capital lasts.

When the commercial interests start to fail, unemployment goes up.
Those rendered unemployed no longer have disposable income themselves
and the people dependent on them fail. The vicious circle gets ever
worse.

Any ex mining town wiped out in the 80s demonstrates this basic
economic theory quite perfectly. Once the mine went all the small
businesses, pubs, clubs, restaurants, taxis, shops, car dealers,
mechanics and so on and on all go out of business.

What's need is to keep the whole system in balance. Pay the debts as
they are due or pay ever increased prices as inflation drives prices
up.

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:47:49 -0000, Nomen Publicus wrote in
uk.media.tv.misc :

>Sir Krustov  wrote:
>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
>> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
>> ignored the warning signs .
>
>"Other peoples money"
>
>It's quite amusing watching the extreme right republicans having to back up
>their "free market" rants by actually voting against their own presidents
>proposals.  I guess that not one in a hundred of them have an economics
>degree or any experience of the "free market" they are so in love with.


The angle I have yet to hear is that these Congress men and women are
so afraid to lose their own jobs in elections in a few weeks that they
are listening to the mobs in their own Main Street rather than
thinking long term and bailing out their cherished Wall Street.

I saw one Scottish commentator on Monday lunchtime (some BBC channel)
seemingly revelling in the idea that capitalism was at last on its
knees and the great economic super power the USA was having to become
socialist overnight to guarantee Wall St. This imagery is helped along
with reports of the Treasury Secretary Poulson allegedly on his knees
literally begging Republicans to approve the plan.

This Scottish bright spark must obviously be quite aware that
Communist (are they still?) China is in the box seat in all this as
they are holding billions of US dollars in cash.

Cash is king is the simple business mantra for any startup to master. 
Hopefully these Main Street economists lobbying their Congress folk
are alert to the fact that their "greatest" economy in the world is
itself beholden to Communist China. 

What must Republican (or even Democrat) USA be thinking by letting
Wall Street crash and burn and have China holding the cash?

The "terrorists Al Quaida" only served up an entree 7 years ago in
demolishing a couple of buildings. Letting capitalism collapse brings
down the mother load of buildings.

Phil O'Sofa wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:27:28 +0100, Maria wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> 
>> Sir Krustov wrote:
>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>> About 2003 IMHO.
>> I remember it because up until then, nobody would even give me a bank 
>> account let alone a loan - that's how it had been for me since the 
>> middle 1980's. By 2005 I had a credit card and a £7k loan.
>>
>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the 
>>> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>>>
>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>>
>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in 
>>> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they 
>>> ignored the warning signs .
>> Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend 
>> to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to 
>> people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.
> 
> 
> But with interest rates so low and inflation being at the same value,
> the actual value of repayments meant that effectively interest rates
> were very small or zero.
> 
> Couple an interest rate of 3% with an inflation rate of 2%. If you buy
> now with the GBP100 in the bank, you will 
forego the GBP 3 (ignoring
> tax) that you will earn in interest.


Ok...but I don't know any loans that were that low, and much has been on 
  credit cardsm which have not been much lower than 12%....
I have just finisheda Lombard loan, that was 6.9%, lowest available at 
the time (before interest rates went up)
> 
> If you buy later, goods costing GBP 100 now will be GBP 102 in a year.
> The interest of GBP 3 means that you have gained GBP 1 in a year.
> 
> Buy now pay later, means that you get the GBP100 item now, pay GBP103
> with interest over the year for an item that will cost GBP102. You've
> now lost GBP 1 over the year but had use of the item.
>  
> Borrowing is not evil in itself. Not repaying is the evil. Borrowing
> for intangibles such as holidays or for past consumed services or
> goods that depreciate immediately like cars is reckless. This is the
> toxic debt that is the cause of the panic.

I agree with that.I just don't understand why anyone would buy 
potentially bad loans.


> Someone somewhere is bound to be chuckling and wishing they could
> copyright these terms. Credit crunch and toxic debt.
> 
> Back to basics is what is required. Lend to those that can afford to
> repay (in effect those that don't really need it in the first place)
> or lend against assets with known agreed worth.
> 
> The downside in this panic is that it might now cause a shift in
> behaviour so that too many will switch to become savers and not
> spenders. 


They may have to if they can't borrow at all...

>If people are not spending, commercial enterprises are then
> at risk. If commercial enterprises do not have a continuous inflow of
> customers (regardless of how they pay) they can only survive as long
> as their own capital lasts.
> 
> When the commercial interests start to fail, unemployment goes up.
> Those rendered unemployed no longer have disposable income themselves
> and the people dependent on them fail. The vicious circle gets ever
> worse.
> 
> Any ex mining town wiped out in the 80s demonstrates this basic
> economic theory quite perfectly. Once the mine went all the small
> businesses, pubs, clubs, restaurants, taxis, shops, car dealers,
> mechanics and so on and on all go out of business.
> 
> What's need is to keep the whole system in balance. Pay the debts as
> they are due or pay ever increased prices as inflation drives prices
> up.
> 

Aye. Has the system ever been in balance?

On Sep 30, 1:17 pm, Sir Krustov  wrote:
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on the
> stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>
> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested in
> how much money they could make rather than what could happen if they
> ignored the warning signs .

I see in his Times column Clarkson (of Top Gear) has been stung too.
He asked someone if it was all because some Mexicans couldn't pay
their mortgage.
"Mexicans" has become something of a euphemism for "Serfs"
I wasn't aware of Clarkson as one in favour of Americanisms creeping
into the British English.
An odd comment though for someone, supposedly the mouth piece of the
'common man', to try to hide.

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:07:13 +0100, Phil O'Sofa wrote:
>
> The angle I have yet to hear is that these Congress men and women are
> so afraid to lose their own jobs in elections in a few weeks that they
> are listening to the mobs in their own Main Street rather than
> thinking long term and bailing out their cherished Wall Street.

yup, isn't democracy a wonderful thing? short-term goals, self-centred
motivations and directed by a mob whose only view is their own comfort.
 ...

> This Scottish bright spark must obviously be quite aware that
> Communist (are they still?) China is in the box seat in all this as
> they are holding billions of US dollars in cash.

ISTM this is the biggest result - which is yet to play out fully.
All those decades of buying cheap stuff from the chinese. I'm
talking about all of us, not merely the yanks and hardly exporting 
anything back to them (_balance_ of trade?) has led to them being
cash-rich and are now in a position to buy all the crash-priced
assets that are now up for grabs.

Tip for your kids: learn mandarin.

Sir Krustov wrote:
> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
> 
When the Greedy Shithole Bankers started paying themselves massive 
bonuses for doing their jobs!

Last year the boss of Lehman Brothers was paid $22 million just in bonuses!

It's the nearest you can get to robbing a bank without doing anything 
illegal.

On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
> >> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>
> >>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
> >>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>
> >>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>
> >>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
> >>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
> >>> they ignored the warning signs .
>
> >> People always ignore the warning
> >> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
>
> > Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
>
> > Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
> > It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
> > before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
>
> >http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
>
> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>
> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>
> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
fraction of that expected.

Saviour Machine wrote:
> On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
>> Ed wrote:
>>> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
>>>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>>>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
>>>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>>>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
>>>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
>>>>> they ignored the warning signs .
>>>> People always ignore the warning
>>>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
>>> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
>>> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
>>> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
>>> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
>>> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
>> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
>> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
>> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>>
>> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
>> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>>
>> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
> to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
> policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
> fraction of that expected.
> 

Where have you been for the last 10 yrs? Most of the endowments sold in 
the 80's and early 90's have been found to be disasterously short of 
projected amounts . They gambled on the stock marker rising as it had 
been . I doubt and old style endowment mortgage has been sold for the 
last 10 yrs becuase of it. If anyone still has one they should cash it 
in and claim compensation - they'll get more than if they continue paying.

On 1 Oct, 13:51, Sofa - Spud  wrote:
> Saviour Machine wrote:
> > On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
> >> Ed wrote:
> >>> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
> >>>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
> >>>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
> >>>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
> >>>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
> >>>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
> >>>>> they ignored the warning signs .
> >>>> People always ignore the warning
> >>>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
> >>> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
> >>> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
> >>> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
> >>> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
> >>>http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
> >> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
> >> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
> >> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>
> >> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
> >> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>
> >> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
> > to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
> > policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
> > fraction of that expected.
>
> Where have you been for the last 10 yrs? Most of the endowments sold in
> the 80's and early 90's have been found to be disasterously short of
> projected amounts . They gambled on the stock marker rising as it had
> been . I doubt and old style endowment mortgage has been sold for the
> last 10 yrs becuase of it. If anyone still has one they should cash it
> in and claim compensation - they'll get more than if they continue paying.


... but take advice before you do anything!  Some endowments are doing
ok, not brilliant (what is?) but ok. As there is also a sort of life
insurance built in and most will have terminal payments that will
boost the value, it may be worth continuing, especially if you're
close to the end of the term.  Now may not be the best time to cash in
anything.  If you can afford to hold tight and keep your fingers
crossed for a couple of years, that may be a better option.  Not
always, but sometimes - it's not black and white.

JohnB wrote:
> On 1 Oct, 13:51, Sofa - Spud  wrote:
>> Saviour Machine wrote:
>>> On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>> Ed wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>>>>>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
>>>>>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>>>>>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>>>>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
>>>>>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
>>>>>>> they ignored the warning signs .
>>>>>> People always ignore the warning
>>>>>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
>>>>> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
>>>>> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
>>>>> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
>>>>> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
>>>>> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
>>>> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
>>>> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
>>>> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>>>> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
>>>> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>>>> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
>>> to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
>>> policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
>>> fraction of that expected.
>> Where have you been for the last 10 yrs? Most of the endowments sold in
>> the 80's and early 90's have been found to be disastrously short of
>> projected amounts . They gambled on the stock marker rising as it had
>> been . I doubt and old style endowment mortgage has been sold for the
>> last 10 yrs becuase of it. If anyone still has one they should cash it
>> in and claim compensation - they'll get more than if they continue paying.
> 
> 
> ... but take advice before you do anything!  Some endowments are doing
> ok, not brilliant (what is?) but ok. As there is also a sort of life
> insurance built in and most will have terminal payments that will
> boost the value, it may be worth continuing, especially if you're
> close to the end of the term.  Now may not be the best time to cash in
> anything.  If you can afford to hold tight and keep your fingers
> crossed for a couple of years, that may be a better option.  Not
> always, but sometimes - it's not black and white.

But most will be cashed in by now - the miss selling thing was years ago 
and then the comp was for those with a certain amount of years left to 
run.

On Oct 1, 2:03 pm, JohnB  wrote:
> On 1 Oct, 13:51, Sofa - Spud  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Saviour Machine wrote:
> > > On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
> > >> Ed wrote:
> > >>> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
> > >>>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
> > >>>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
> > >>>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
> > >>>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
> > >>>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
> > >>>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
> > >>>>> they ignored the warning signs .
> > >>>> People always ignore the warning
> > >>>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
> > >>> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
> > >>> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically> > >>> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
> > >>> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
> > >>>http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
> > >> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
> > >> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
> > >> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>
> > >> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
> > >> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>
> > >> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
> > > to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
> > > policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
> > > fraction of that expected.
>
> > Where have you been for the last 10 yrs? Most of the endowments sold in
> > the 80's and early 90's have been found to be disasterously short of
> > projected amounts . They gambled on the stock marker rising as it had
> > been . I doubt and old style endowment mortgage has been sold for the
> > last 10 yrs becuase of it. If anyone still has one they should cash it
> > in and claim compensation - they'll get more than if they continue paying.
>
> ... but take advice before you do anything!  Some endowments are doing
> ok, not brilliant (what is?) but ok. As there is also a sort of life
> insurance built in and most will have terminal payments that will
> boost the value, it may be worth continuing, especially if you're
> close to the end of the term.  Now may not be the best time to cash in
> anything.  If you can afford to hold tight and keep your fingers
> crossed for a couple of years, that may be a better option.  Not
> always, but sometimes - it's not black and white.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not all endowments should be cashed in! Anyone close to term will have
hopefully moved the money into cash 'just in case', otherwise they
could be faced with a shortfall, but people that manage them properly
should do fine.

Anyone with more than a decade left on their mortgage will actually
probably benefit from this correction due to pound cost averaging
(buying more units when the price is lower). As long as you have a
green or even amber letter from your provider just keep an eye on it
and increase the payments if necessary. They only assume 6% growth on
the projection letters and the market averages 12% or so over the last
30 years.

Anyway, an endowment is just a way of saving money that has a life
insurance policy attached. You could put your money in a bank that may
go bust, or have a repayment mortgage, its all swings and roundabouts.
Just monitor it and get proper advice!

"Gaz"  wrote in message
news:6kfq07F7n3mqU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>
> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.

It happened in Japan. The universe still exists.

--
Andy

"Phil O'Sofa"  wrote in message
news:6p95e4h495tefitla8o8ll6g4smslrcatj@4ax.com...
> >Greed. Frugal people don't make lots of money. What a great scam - lend
> >to lots of people who can't pay back and then sell the loans on to
> >people who really ought to know better than to buy them...lol.
>
>
> But with interest rates so low and inflation being at the same value,
> the actual value of repayments meant that effectively interest rates
> were very small or zero.
>
> Couple an interest rate of 3% with an inflation rate of 2%. If you buy
> now with the GBP100 in the bank, you will forego the GBP 3 (ignoring
> tax) that you will earn in interest.
>
> If you buy later, goods costing GBP 100 now will be GBP 102 in a year.
> The interest of GBP 3 means that you have gained GBP 1 in a year.
>
> Buy now pay later, means that you get the GBP100 item now, pay GBP103
> with interest over the year for an item that will cost GBP102. You've
> now lost GBP 1 over the year but had use of the item.

Where could you get a loan at 3% ??

> Borrowing is not evil in itself. Not repaying is the evil. Borrowing
> for intangibles such as holidays or for past consumed services or
> goods that depreciate immediately like cars is reckless. This is the
> toxic debt that is the cause of the panic.

Eh? Where have you been the past year?? Borrowing for HOUSES is the cause of the
current problems.

> Someone somewhere is bound to be chuckling and wishing they could
> copyright these terms. Credit crunch and toxic debt.
>
> Back to basics is what is required. Lend to those that can afford to
> repay (in effect those that don't really need it in the first place)
> or lend against assets with known agreed worth.

The problem is the "known agreed worth". Who agrees it? And who predicts what
the worth might be in a few years?

Anyone with any common sense knows that what goes up tends to come down,
especially it it's gone up at an unusually fast rate. Apparently this doesn't
apply to the banks and anyone who bought a house in the last few years...

--
Andy

Ed wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:03 pm, JohnB  wrote:
>> On 1 Oct, 13:51, Sofa - Spud  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Saviour Machine wrote:
>>>> On 1 Oct, 00:11, "Gaz"  wrote:
>>>>> Ed wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, Ed  wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 30, 12:17 pm, Sir Krustov 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Where and when did the trouble start ? .
>>>>>>>> With banks going tits up or bailed out and billions being lost on
>>>>>>>> the stock market etc - could the situation have been prevented .
>>>>>>>> 'a stitch in time saves nine'
>>>>>>>> Do you think it was greed by the bankers who where more interested
>>>>>>>> in how much money they could make rather than what could happen if
>>>>>>>> they ignored the warning signs .
>>>>>>> People always ignore the warning
>>>>>>> signs.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t8YTvdYXws
>>>>>> Sorry, wrong link, although a bit of spitting image is always welcome
>>>>>> Read this, it's very enlightening. We've been here before basically.
>>>>>> It took around 5 years of falling prices and then some ups and downs
>>>>>> before a return to the stupid growth of the last 14 years...
>>>>>> http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/FAQ-1989-what-the-papers-said.php
>>>>> House prices dropped by about seventeen percent in the crash of the late
>>>>> eighties early nineties. If house prices crashed by seventeen percent now,
>>>>> it would only take them back a couple of years in value, no hard loss.
>>>>> For a house to be worth the same as it was in 1997 it would need to drop by
>>>>> 65%. That is not a crash, thats the end of the universe.
>>>>> Gaz- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> It's the poor buggers who have endowment mortgages who have the most
>>>> to lose. Not only will they end up in negative equity, but their
>>>> policies will have been hit very hard, most likely paying out a small
>>>> fraction of that expected.
>>> Where have you been for the last 10 yrs? Most of the endowments sold in
>>> the 80's and early 90's have been found to be disasterously short of
>>> projected amounts . They gambled on the stock marker rising as it had
>>> been . I doubt and old style endowment mortgage has been sold for the
>>> last 10 yrs becuase of it. If anyone still has one they should cash it
>>> in and claim compensation - they'll get more than if they continue paying.
>> ... but take advice before you do anything!  Some endowments are doing
>> ok, not brilliant (what is?) but ok. As there is also a sort of life
>> insurance built in and most will have terminal payments that will
>> boost the value, it may be worth continuing, especially if you're
>> close to the end of the term.  Now may not be the best time to cash in
>> anything.  If you can afford to hold tight and keep your fingers
>> crossed for a couple of years, that may be a better option.  Not
>> always, but sometimes - it's not black and white.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> Not all endowments should be cashed in! Anyone close to term will have
> hopefully moved the money into cash 'just in case', otherwise they
> could be faced with a shortfall, but people that manage them properly
> should do fine.
> 
> Anyone with more than a decade left on their mortgage will actually
> probably benefit from this correction due to pound cost averaging
> (buying more units when the price is lower). As long as you have a
> green or even amber letter from your provider just keep an eye on it
> and increase the payments if necessary. They only assume 6% growth on
> the projection letters and the market averages 12% or so over the last
> 30 years.
> 
> Anyway, an endowment is just a way of saving money that has a life
> insurance policy attached. You could put your money in a bank that may
> go bust, or have a repayment mortgage, its all swings and roundabouts.
> Just monitor it and get proper advice!

To be clear - I doubt there are any of the *missold* endowments left 
given that they were sold in the late 80's and early 90's - most of the 
buyers have been contacted by the ombudsman by now, they aren't that 
good a product really. The life aspect you can buy cheaper and the end 
amount even with the finishing bonus can be bettered in several places.

Of course anyone with one should seek financial advice and not take it 
from anyone called Sofa Spud on usenet!

In , Phil O'Sofa
 wrote:
>I saw one Scottish commentator on Monday lunchtime (some BBC channel)
>seemingly revelling in the idea that capitalism was at last on its
>knees and the great economic super power the USA was having to become
>socialist overnight to guarantee Wall St. This imagery is helped along
>with reports of the Treasury Secretary Poulson allegedly on his knees
>literally begging Republicans to approve the plan.

Check out the Daily Show on More4. It's a great mix of satire and
sometimes sensible debate, the latter of which isn't found anywhere else
on USA TV. They showed footage of him with the voiceover "Frankenstinien
Treasury Secretary Poulson..." :-)